A 23-year-old Norwood man is the first person to be charged under the state’s new upskirting law after he allegedly used his iPad to take a photo underneath a woman’s skirt at an MBTA station in Jamaica Plain.
Joshua Gonsalves pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in West Roxbury Municipal Court Wednesday to a charge of photographing an unsuspecting person in the nude, the office of Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.
At a news conference Wednesday, transit police Chief Paul MacMillan said officers were called to the Forest Hills Station at 5:45 p.m. Tuesday. The victim told officers that a man sitting on a nearby bench in the station had reached out and held an iPad between her legs, facing up her skirt, MacMillan said.
Gonsalves boarded a bus and left the area. Officers stopped the Route 34E bus at the corner of Washington Street and Garfield Avenue and saw a man holding an iPad who matched the description given by the victim, transit police said. The 26-year-old woman had snapped photographs of Gonsalves on her own cellphone before he left on the bus, MacMillan said.
“We have to commend the victim here,” MacMillan told reporters. “She did exactly what she should’ve done.”
After police escorted Gonsalves off the bus, he allegedly told them he had heard on the news it was not illegal to “take pictures up a girl’s skirt,” transit police said. “He told the officers he thought this was legal, that he could do this, and that he had been doing this,” MacMillan said.
I'm sure the NSA creeps appreciated the gifts.
He was arrested and taken to transit police headquarters for booking. The chief said the arrest was the first one made under the new state law.
Conley sought to make it “explicit for anyone who missed the follow-up news reports” that these kinds of photos are not permissible.
“Everyone has a right to privacy under their own clothes,” Conley said in a statement.
Except when it comes to the airports.
MacMillan said transit police seized Gonsalves’s iPad and iPhone and will seek a search warrant to look through the devices.
“This may lead to additional charges,” MacMillan said.
The state Legislature passed a bill in March outlawing upskirting, making it illegal to snap secret photos and videos of “the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing.”
Assistant District Attorney Kristina Kerwin requested Gonsalves be held on $1,000 cash bail at his arraignment. But, he was ordered held on $150 and is to stay away from all MBTA property, Conley’s office said.
Gonsalves’s attorney, Charles Pappas, did not immediately return phone messages for a comment. Gonsalves is to return to court Aug. 22.
"SJC broadens law on noncontact lewd behavior" by Peter Schworm | Globe staff March 22, 2014
The state’s highest court ruled Friday that offenders who commit lewd acts without physically contacting their victims can nonetheless be declared sexually dangerous and continue to be imprisoned after their sentence has been served, broadening the reach of the state’s sexual offender law.
Gonslaves could be in lots of trouble!
The unanimous Supreme Judicial Court decision upheld a 2012 ruling declaring Harold Fay a sexually dangerous person, even though his six convictions for sexual offenses did not involve direct physical contact with his victims.
The court ruled that Fay’s sexual misconduct put his victims in fear that they would be subjected to a physical sexual offense, justifying his commitment to a treatment center.
Not to defend a pervert, but this basically says Massachusetts can keep you in prison because someone out there may feel you are a threat.
Why bother with a sentence? The judges aren't bothering with the constitution.
“Protecting children from exposure to such conduct by persons suffering from a mental disorder who, as a consequence, are likely to engage in the conduct falls well within constitutional boundaries,” the court held.
Wave the kids at us.
So when is the state going to start taking care of them?
Fay, who has a long history of sexual misconduct, was committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater after a Superior Court judge determined that he suffered from pedophilia and was likely to reoffend against children. In all of the episodes, Fay approached or tried to lure the children, the judge determined.
His lawyer argued that he should not be declared sexually dangerous because he was not likely to commit physical offenses and that his commitment violated his civil rights....
He never touched anyone?
--more--"
The state’s highest court ruled Friday that offenders who commit lewd acts without physically contacting their victims can nonetheless be declared sexually dangerous and continue to be imprisoned after their sentence has been served, broadening the reach of the state’s sexual offender law.
Gonslaves could be in lots of trouble!
The unanimous Supreme Judicial Court decision upheld a 2012 ruling declaring Harold Fay a sexually dangerous person, even though his six convictions for sexual offenses did not involve direct physical contact with his victims.
The court ruled that Fay’s sexual misconduct put his victims in fear that they would be subjected to a physical sexual offense, justifying his commitment to a treatment center.
Not to defend a pervert, but this basically says Massachusetts can keep you in prison because someone out there may feel you are a threat.
Why bother with a sentence? The judges aren't bothering with the constitution.
“Protecting children from exposure to such conduct by persons suffering from a mental disorder who, as a consequence, are likely to engage in the conduct falls well within constitutional boundaries,” the court held.
Wave the kids at us.
So when is the state going to start taking care of them?
Fay, who has a long history of sexual misconduct, was committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater after a Superior Court judge determined that he suffered from pedophilia and was likely to reoffend against children. In all of the episodes, Fay approached or tried to lure the children, the judge determined.
His lawyer argued that he should not be declared sexually dangerous because he was not likely to commit physical offenses and that his commitment violated his civil rights....
He never touched anyone?
--more--"
